Project R. Evolution for improving clinical research in Italy: challenges and strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The R.Evolution project aimed to reach a consensus on the main challenges of conducting clinical research in Italy and possible strategies and approaches to address them and optimize clinical research management. METHODS: A scientific board of experts initially discussed potentially critical areas in clinical research conduct and further explored them through an online national survey. The survey results were further examined by a group of 35 panelists representing different clinical research stakeholders. A Nominal Group Technique and a Delphi approach (two rounds) were used to generate a consensus on critical factors, tools and strategies in clinical research. RESULTS: Four main critical areas were identified: study feasibility, authorization procedures, operational aspects and patient management. The main issues are scarce awareness of the value of clinical research, lack of trained workforce and excessive complexity of protocols and administrative procedures. The Delphi panel identified six intervention areas: culture and patient involvement; procedures; staff, contracts, training and incentives; organization and infrastructure; administrative procedures; and ethics committee. CONCLUSION: According to the R.Evolution project, possible strategies to improve clinical research management in Italy include a deeper understanding of the value of clinical research, the creation of long-term plans for hiring, training, organizing and motivating clinical trial staff, the simplification and harmonization of administrative procedures, as well as protocol design, and the development of stronger networks of centers and stakeholders.

A Prospective Phase II Single-arm Study of Niraparib Plus Dostarlimab in Patients With Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer and/or Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Positive for PD-L1 Expression and Germline or Somatic Mutations in the DNA Repair Genes: Rationale and Study Design.

Treatment with poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)1/2 inhibitors represents a novel opportunity to selectively kill a subset of cancer cell types by exploiting their deficiencies in DNA repair, thus leading to synthetic lethality. Treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-tumors with PARP inhibitors generates significant levels of DNA damage, which has the potential to further increasing tumor mutational burden, promoting neoantigen release, and upregulating both interferons and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, suggesting a potential complementary and synergistic role with immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment. Here we present the design and rationale of a prospective, phase II, single-arm study aiming to investigate the safety and antitumor activity of the combination of niraparib and dostarlimab in patients with HRD-positive and PD-L1 ≥ 1% advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and/or malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Considering the prevalence of pathogenetic germline mutations in DNA repair genes, reported to be around 5% to 10% in patients with MPM and NSCLC, a total of 700 to 1000 cases will be screened to identify 70 patients who are HRD-positive/PD-L1 ≥ 1% (N = 35 NSCLC; N = 35 MPM) to be included. Patients will receive the combination of niraparib orally once daily and dostarlimab intravenously. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints are objective response, duration of response, overall survival, and safety. The results of this study will provide evidence on the safety and antitumor activity of niraparib and dostarlimab combination in patients with advanced, HRD-positive and PD-L1 ≥ 1% NSCLC and/or MPM.

Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in five different groups of individuals at different environmental and professional risk of infection.

It is partially unknown whether the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection persists with time. To address this issue, we detected the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in different groups of individuals previously diagnosed with COVID-19 disease (group 1 and 2), or potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection (group 3 and 4), and in a representative group of individuals with limited environmental exposure to the virus due to lockdown restrictions (group 5). The primary outcome was specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the different groups assessed by qualitative and quantitative analysis at baseline, 3 and 6 months follow-up. The seroconversion rate at baseline test was 95% in group 1, 61% in group 2, 40% in group 3, 17% in group 4 and 3% in group 5. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed male gender, close COVID-19 contact and presence of COVID-19 related symptoms strongly associated with serological positivity. The percentage of positive individuals as assessed by the qualitative and quantitative tests was superimposable. At the quantitative test, the median level of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels measured in positive cases retested at 6-months increased significantly from baseline. The study indicates that assessing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 through qualitative and quantitative testing is a reliable disease surveillance tool.

Patient associations and clinical oncology research: how much does a patient's voice really matter?

Background: New trends are emerging in clinical research, such as patient empowerment and an active role in influencing health and research ethics. Patients' involvement is considered pivotal by stakeholders and institutions because they can channel the voice of those they represent, empowering their starring role in the different research activities.Objectives: To obtain an overview of the real involvement of Italian patient associations in clinical research.Methods: In January 2019, the Working Group 'Clinical Research Coordinators' of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology spread an online questionnaire consisting of 16 questions on the active involvement of patient associations in clinical research.Results: The involvement in clinical research working groups, in the organization and implementation of specific activities and training initiatives is very limited (21.7% in both cases), as well as the active involvement in the conduct and/or definition of clinical trials (0.3%). Moreover, few associations (15.2%) have joined projects on patient involvement in clinical research in collaboration with other associations.Discussion: Although the current involvement of the associations may have been somewhat underestimated, there is no doubt that much more can be done in terms of training and identification of common objectives between patients and professionals.

Phase I studies: a test bench for Italian clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Determination 809/2015 sets all the requirements that clinical units and laboratories must meet in order to conduct phase I studies. Requirements include buildings, equipment, personnel, emergency management, as well as quality requirements defined in a set of standard operating procedures. METHODS: In September 2018, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology working group, Clinical Research Coordinator, created an anonymous survey addressed to 51 medical directors of oncologic/hematologic clinical phase I units and all medical directors of generic and transversal units located in Italy and listed at the AIFA website. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 24 institutions were collected, 9 previously inspected by competent authorities. All surveyed structures are certified to conduct profit studies and 1 is authorized to include healthy volunteers; 15 units implemented a Clinical Trial Quality Team in order to conduct nonprofit studies. At the time of data collection, a total of 398 proposals for phase I trials have been received, more than 50% coming from 3 institutes. A total of 144 phase I studies were active, with a median of 2.5 (Q1-Q3=0-6) studies for each center and asymmetric distribution of proposals. CONCLUSION: The considerable number of proposals received from the interviewed centers indicates that Italy plays an important role in the international pharmaceutical scene, despite bureaucratic procedures that threaten exclusion from decision-making. The AIFA Determination will be an important opportunity to acquire a competitive working approach.

Effect of Contract Research Organization Bureaucracy in Clinical Trial Management: A Model From Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contract research organization (CRO) support is largely included in clinical trial management, although its effect in terms of time savings and benefit has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of lung cancer trials to explore differences in term of trial activation timelines and accrual for studies with and without CRO involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results regarding study timelines from feasibility data to first patient enrollment were collected from 7 Italian thoracic oncology departments. The final accruals (screened/enrolled patients) are reported. We considered CRO/sponsor-administered and CRO-free trials according to who was responsible for the management of the crucial setup phases. RESULTS: Of 113 trials, 62 (54.9%) were CRO-administered, 34 (30.1%) were sponsor-administered, and 17 (15.0%) were CRO-free. The median time from feasibility invitation to documentation obtainment was 151 days in the CRO-administered trials versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 120 in the CRO-free trials. The time from document submission to contract signature was 142 days in the CRO-administered versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 132 in the CRO-free trials. The time from global accrual opening to first patient enrollment was 247 days for the CRO-administered versus 194 in the sponsor-administered and 151 in the CRO-free trials. No significant differences were observed in terms of the median overall timeline: 21 months in the CRO-administered, 15 in the sponsor-administered, and 18 months in the CRO-free studies (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences were identified, the results of our analysis support the idea that bureaucratic procedures might require more time in CRO-administered trials than in sponsor-administered and CRO-free studies. This bureaucratic delay could negatively affect Italian patients' screening and enrollment compared with other countries.

Molecular profiling in Italian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: An observational prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Molecular profiling of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is recommended according to European and Italian guidelines. However, molecular routine assessment remains still heterogeneous. This observational study aimed to take a picture of the real clinical practice in molecular testing and therapeutic choices in advanced Italian NSCLCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent NSCLCs referred to 38 Italian centres, from November 2014 to November 2015. Information regarding molecular profiling and treatment choices were collected. Description of patients' outcome included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival in first (PFS1) and second-line (PFS2). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Among 1787 patients enrolled, 1388 (78%) performed at least one molecular analysis during the history of disease: 76% were tested for EGFR, 53% for ALK, 27% for KRAS, 16% for ROS1, 14% for BRAF, 5% for HER2, 4% for MET and 1% for FGFR. The remaining 399 patients (22.3%) did not receive any molecular test. Among patients receiving at least one molecular analysis, 583 (42%) presented a molecular alteration. Considering EGFR mutated and/or ALK rearranged patients (402), for which target agents were routinely reimbursed at time of study in Italy, the 86% received a personalized treatment as first and/or second line: the 90% (286) of EGFR mutants received an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, mostly gefitinib (41.1%) or afatinib (36.4%) while 74% (62) of ALK translocated patients received an ALK inhibitor, mostly crizotinib (64%). Median OS was 9.34 months (95% CI 8.62-10.0), median PFS1 was 4.61 months (95%CI 4.31-4.84) and median PFS2 was 2.76 months (95%CI 2.57-3.19). In the Italian clinical practice, routine molecular assessment was largely applied in NSCLC patients, according to national guidelines, but a low level of ALK test was reached. Most of EGFR mutants an ALK rearranged patients received a personalized treatment as first and/or second line.